Assessor ready to issue same-sex marriage licenses

Anticipating a June ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, the Riverside County department that issues marriage licenses is poised to grant them to gay and lesbian couples if the high court clears the way for same-sex unions to resume in California, a county official says.

"We're in place," said Assessor-Clerk-Recorder Larry Ward, in an interview recently. "We're ready to go."

Because of state legislation and the brief period in 2008 when California issued same-sex marriage licenses, Ward said Riverside County's license application is gender-neutral and there is no need to print new forms.

"The marriage license says '1st person data' and '2nd person data,' and then allows each person to mark either bride or groom," Ward said.

The department relies on staff members and volunteers to conduct ceremonies. Ward said he is checking to ensure each volunteer is comfortable performing ceremonies for same-sex couples. He said he will expect those who officiate weddings at the county clerk's office to be willing to conduct them for everybody getting married, "because we're doing civil ceremonies; we're not doing religious ceremonies."

Ward said the Office of Vital Records in the California Department of Public Health would notify counties when to resume same-sex marriages, should the high court allow them.

Ward oversees the county clerk's office, which issues marriage licenses, passports and fictitious business name statements. The office annually issues more than 10,000 marriage licenses.

The county clerk's office also offers low-cost weddings. The county's fees are $90 for a marriage license and $75 for a ceremony.

"You know, it's not for everybody," Ward said. "But for some folks the price is right."

During the brief window of time same-sex marriage was legal in California, between June and November 2008, Ward said the county issued 2,159 licenses to gay and lesbian couples. That practice was halted with the November 2008 passage of Proposition 8, which barred same-sex unions.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of California's Prop. 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress, and signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, in 1996. The latter defined marriage for federal purposes as being between a man and a woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside their borders.

Julie Greenberg, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said there is a "significant" chance the court's highly anticipated ruling in late June will clear the way for same-sex marriages to resume. But precisely how justices will rule is far from clear.

"It's very difficult to predict because there are a lot of different routes that they could take," Greenberg said in a telephone interview Monday.

However, she did say a sweeping, straightforward ruling is unlikely.

"The same-sex marriage proponents would like a ruling from the Supreme Court that says no state may ban same-sex marriage," Greenberg said. "It's not going to happen."

Based on the types of questions justices raised at hearings in March, Greenberg said the court probably will clear the way for same-sex unions to take place in California only, via one of three routes.

"California's the only state in the country that granted marriage rights to same-sex couples and then took it away," she said.

Echoing an earlier 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the justices could determine that, once the right is granted, it may not be taken away, she said. That would have the affect of opening the way for same-sex unions to resume in California and barring other states that have legalized them from taking the right away.

Greenberg said another probable outcome is that the court could determine that those who appealed the case, the backers of Prop. 8, had no "standing" ---- or no direct stake in the outcome ---- and therefore weren't legally entitled to bring it forward.

The third potential route would come into play if a majority of justices can't reach an agreement. Then, she said, the court might issue a one-sentence decision saying "we shouldn't have granted certiorari." That would have the effect of deferring the matter to the 9th Circuit, which said same-sex couples could marry.

Greenberg said another possible, although less likely, outcome is that the court could determine because Prop. 8 was passed by a majority of California voters it is constitutional.

"For them to overrule a popular vote means that they would have to couch it in a way that is defensible," she said.

Legal considerations aside, Greenberg said there is also the factor that the justices are sensitive to and influenced by the changing society.

"Public opinion is clearly going toward same-sex marriage. ... They can't ignore that," she said. "The justices don't want to make a ruling that is going to look bad 10 years from now."

Ward declined to say what he thinks about the raging debate surrounding what his office may or may not be asked to do this summer.

"My position has always been I follow the law," he said. "My personal feelings have nothing to do with it."